If there is absolutely no controversy among Orthodox Churches over the use of the Western rite, then why does the EP and Church of Greece not approve of its usage? I remember reading how the GOA's Metropolitan of San Francisco forbide his priest from serving with WR clergy.

Most of your points have already been adequately addressed, but I did want to mention that the GOA Met. of San Francisco was merely speaking on his own behalf. The Greek Church in Denver is quite supportive of the 2 WR parishes in that city, and just last night in my own city, we had the priests of the GOA Church as well as the OCA Church attend our Western Rite Solemn Vespers service for Laetare Sunday. And it wasn't begrudgingly! They were kneeling, standing, bowing and chanting along the whole time.

Why does the EP or the Greek church need to approve? If I felt the need for a pope I would remain RC!

I don't he is saying that they need to give pope-like approval, only that their issues point to there being problem (and I'm not saying that I agree with him).

Well when the EP cleans up the mess created by the calendar of Meletios Metaxakis the New Calendar and the Council hopefully by the grace of God returns all of Orthodoxy to the Julian Calendar which continues to be used by the majority of Orthodox Christians, then and only then should he pass judgment about the Western-rite.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

Why does the EP or the Greek church need to approve? If I felt the need for a pope I would remain RC!

I don't he is saying that they need to give pope-like approval, only that their issues point to there being problem (and I'm not saying that I agree with him).

Well when the EP cleans up the mess created by the calendar of Meletios Metaxakis the New Calendar and the Council hopefully by the grace of God returns all of Orthodoxy to the Julian Calendar which continues to be used by the majority of Orthodox Christians

By the grace of God, all the Churches would switch fully to the revised Julian Calendar.

« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 11:03:12 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If local Churches can glorify people (i.e., add them to their lists of saints) I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to (re)introduce Liturgies. But anyway, in the late 1920s, the Polish Orthodox Church felt it was necessary to consult Constantinopole before introducing WR. She did and got an approval.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Why does the EP or the Greek church need to approve? If I felt the need for a pope I would remain RC!

I don't he is saying that they need to give pope-like approval, only that their issues point to there being problem (and I'm not saying that I agree with him).

Well when the EP cleans up the mess created by the calendar of Meletios Metaxakis the New Calendar and the Council hopefully by the grace of God returns all of Orthodoxy to the Julian Calendar which continues to be used by the majority of Orthodox Christians

By the grace of God, all the Churches would switch fully to the revised Julian Calendar.

Please, no.

Logged

“Find the door of your heart, and you will discover it is the door to the kingdom of God.” - St. John Chrysostom

Why would ANYONE be interested in coming to an Orthodox Church for a Western Rite service when they could go to Rome and get the REAL thing? This baffles me, utterly.

My local RCC parish has a service that looks and feels like a Baptist church service, except for the lay Eucharistic ministers and altar girls. And the preaching isn't nearly as good. No, you cannot go to Rome and get the real thing. Not anymore.

If I wanted to learn about the Eastern Rite, I would go to the Eastern Orthodox Church to learn about it. That means I would go to a parish that is truly and historically part of the Orthodox Church, such as the Russian Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church, or a canonical Orthodox Church in communion with them.

I would not go to Roman Catholic Church or a group in communion with Rome to learn about it, regardless of whether this group is called the Byzantine Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

It makes no sense for the Latin Church to use the Eastern Liturgy just as it makes no sense for the Eastern Church to perform the Western (Latin) liturgy.

Can you not see that having so-called "Western Rite" Orthodox is simply reverse Uniatism? Why would anyone want that again? Why repeat the mistake?

Eastern Rite Roman Catholics and Western Rite Orthodox are always going to be perceived as "grudge churches."

And American, with all our jurisdictional pluralism and canonical mess is the LAST place that needs Western Rite Orthodox. We don't even have all the North American Orthodox on the same calendar and we introduce a Western Rite into our alphabet soup of jurisdictions? I don't find that helpful, prudent or wise. How can it possibly help American Orthodox to attain any unity? It will only further fragment us into more tribal-like factions. It will create a liturgical ghetto for former Episcopalians and other converts rather than incorporating them into already existing American Orthodoxy.

As you can tell, I think the Western Rite in the USA is a horrible idea. Perhaps in historical Western lands in Europe it could work, in places where there is a real organic link to the Western Orthodox past, like England or Ireland for example. But it the USA, I think it will only further divide us. And we desperately need more unity and cooperation. We are far too tribal and factional already.

Not to mention both "Western rites" are cobbled together. It just seems very unlike the Orthodox to just pick up a rite having laid fallow for hundreds of years, make some Byzantine modifications, and then start using it. As for the "St. Tikon" liturgy, that's even stranger a "rite". And the combination of quasi-Western liturgy (mixture of pre- and post-schism elements with Byzantine additions) with Eastern theology---just not for me.

slightly off the topic, but what is the calender deal? I am new and unfamiliar with what causes such a heated controversy. Back to topic, in reply to the other RC's on line, both the tridentine mass and "Novus Ordo" are sort of "cobbled together" and are not as ancient as the Byzantine.

The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory belongs to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Are you saying you recognize P. Benedict XVI as the head of that Church?

No, it's the Divine Liturgy of Our Father among the Saints Gregory the Great Pope of Rome.

One thing I appreciate about this WRO business is the unstated implication that the Catholic Church in communion with the Apostolic See in Rome is a true Church. We cultivated the Roman rite for centuries after the schism, and now Orthodox are happily using it. Sure, there is a tacked-on Byzantine epiclesis, but I see so many post-schism elements in it that I appreciate the unstated assumption that the Lex Orandi of Orthodoxy could develop within the confines of the Roman Church. I've already seen WRO defenders on this thread say that the rite did NOT die off but was carried on by us Romans. So we are not unbaptized heretics after all, or are unbaptized heretics capable of carrying on Tradition?

So when I see WRO elevate the Host at the Consecration, or read the Last Gospel, or celebrate Corpus Christi (texts written by St. Thomas Aquinas!), I smile. It's a sign of Orthodox recognition of Catholic orthodoxy.

I'm waiting to see feast days for St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, etc. in the WRO calendar.

That's funny, I feel that way about the post-Vatican II liturgy, and even parts of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. What currently-used rites weren't "cobbled" together at some point?

Quote

It just seems very unlike the Orthodox to just pick up a rite having laid fallow for hundreds of years, make some Byzantine modifications, and then start using it.

The Orthodox Church cares more about truth and redemption and beauty than most anything else. If it's true and can be used authentically by those who desire to do so, then glory be to God.

Quote

As for the "St. Tikon" liturgy, that's even stranger a "rite".

And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!” - Luke 5:26

Quote

And the combination of quasi-Western liturgy (mixture of pre- and post-schism elements with Byzantine additions) with Eastern theology---just not for me.

Why would it be, when you're Roman Catholic? At any rate, any approved Orthodox rites do not have "Western" or "Eastern" theology, but have the unchanging, unalterable, universal, mystical and dogmatic theology of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Undivided Church.

One thing I appreciate about this WRO business is the unstated implication that the Catholic Church in communion with the Apostolic See in Rome is a true Church. We cultivated the Roman rite for centuries after the schism, and now Orthodox are happily using it. Sure, there is a tacked-on Byzantine epiclesis, but I see so many post-schism elements in it that I appreciate the unstated assumption that the Lex Orandi of Orthodoxy could develop within the confines of the Roman Church. I've already seen WRO defenders on this thread say that the rite did NOT die off but was carried on by us Romans. So we are not unbaptized heretics after all, or are unbaptized heretics capable of carrying on Tradition?

Truth is truth no matter where it comes from. That being said, it's unlikely that the Orthodox Church would approve of wholly-new rites, with no historical roots whatsoever. But yes, post-Schism elements that were developed within the confines of the Roman Church (or Anglican Church for that matter), so long as they are true and logically derived from that which came before it, can be used with joy by those blessed by the Church to do so.

Quote

So when I see WRO elevate the Host at the Consecration, or read the Last Gospel, or celebrate Corpus Christi (texts written by St. Thomas Aquinas!), I smile. It's a sign of Orthodox recognition of Catholic orthodoxy.

Yes indeed, Orthodoxy recognizes her truth wherever it may be found.

Quote

I'm waiting to see feast days for St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, etc. in the WRO calendar.

It just seems very unlike the Orthodox to just pick up a rite having laid fallow for hundreds of years, make some Byzantine modifications, and then start using it.

The Orthodox Church cares more about truth and redemption and beauty than most anything else. If it's true and can be used authentically by those who desire to do so, then glory be to God.

I'm sorry, I must correct myself. It didn't lie fallow for hundreds of years---we have been cultivating it. And that is what you have adopted---that, and the Anglican version of it.

My question is, how Western can WRO go? How about post-schism saints? The Rosary? Stations? Eucharistic adoration? How about Western mysticism and spirituality? How about Augustine and Aquinas?

Or are we talking about a veneer of 16th-century Roman liturgy translated into "Elizabethan" English twinned with contemporary Byzantine theology?If our Lex Orandi was worth adopting, why not our Lex Credendi and Lex Vivendi that went with it?

That's funny, I feel that way about the post-Vatican II liturgy, and even parts of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. What currently-used rites weren't "cobbled" together at some point?

Quote

It just seems very unlike the Orthodox to just pick up a rite having laid fallow for hundreds of years, make some Byzantine modifications, and then start using it.

The Orthodox Church cares more about truth and redemption and beauty than most anything else. If it's true and can be used authentically by those who desire to do so, then glory be to God.

Quote

As for the "St. Tikon" liturgy, that's even stranger a "rite".

And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!” - Luke 5:26

Quote

And the combination of quasi-Western liturgy (mixture of pre- and post-schism elements with Byzantine additions) with Eastern theology---just not for me.

Why would it be, when you're Roman Catholic? At any rate, any approved Orthodox rites do not have "Western" or "Eastern" theology, but have the unchanging, unalterable, universal, mystical and dogmatic theology of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Undivided Church.

One thing I appreciate about this WRO business is the unstated implication that the Catholic Church in communion with the Apostolic See in Rome is a true Church. We cultivated the Roman rite for centuries after the schism, and now Orthodox are happily using it. Sure, there is a tacked-on Byzantine epiclesis, but I see so many post-schism elements in it that I appreciate the unstated assumption that the Lex Orandi of Orthodoxy could develop within the confines of the Roman Church. I've already seen WRO defenders on this thread say that the rite did NOT die off but was carried on by us Romans. So we are not unbaptized heretics after all, or are unbaptized heretics capable of carrying on Tradition?

Truth is truth no matter where it comes from. That being said, it's unlikely that the Orthodox Church would approve of wholly-new rites, with no historical roots whatsoever. But yes, post-Schism elements that were developed within the confines of the Roman Church (or Anglican Church for that matter), so long as they are true and logically derived from that which came before it, can be used with joy by those blessed by the Church to do so.

Quote

So when I see WRO elevate the Host at the Consecration, or read the Last Gospel, or celebrate Corpus Christi (texts written by St. Thomas Aquinas!), I smile. It's a sign of Orthodox recognition of Catholic orthodoxy.

Yes indeed, Orthodoxy recognizes her truth wherever it may be found.

Quote

I'm waiting to see feast days for St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, etc. in the WRO calendar.

Well, Sleeper, I appreciate the respect and even love for the post-schism Roman tradition. That's really the implication of WRO that perhaps rubs some less ecumenical Orthodox the wrong way, IMO.

My question is, how Western can WRO go? How about post-schism saints? The Rosary? Stations? Eucharistic adoration? How about Western mysticism and spirituality? How about Augustine and Aquinas?

Or are we talking about a veneer of 16th-century Roman liturgy translated into "Elizabethan" English twinned with contemporary Byzantine theology?If our Lex Orandi was worth adopting, why not our Lex Credendi and Lex Vivendi that went with it?

As far as the West is Orthodox. It excludes Thomas Aquinas and post-schism Saints.

It's not filled with the temporary Byzantine theology but the original Christian theology.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

It just seems very unlike the Orthodox to just pick up a rite having laid fallow for hundreds of years, make some Byzantine modifications, and then start using it.

The Orthodox Church cares more about truth and redemption and beauty than most anything else. If it's true and can be used authentically by those who desire to do so, then glory be to God.

I'm sorry, I must correct myself. It didn't lie fallow for hundreds of years---we have been cultivating it. And that is what you have adopted---that, and the Anglican version of it.

Correct!

Quote

My question is, how Western can WRO go? How about post-schism saints? The Rosary? Stations? Eucharistic adoration? How about Western mysticism and spirituality? How about Augustine and Aquinas?

My parish serves a Rosary every Sunday before Mass, and we do the Stations every Friday during Lent. We don't actively do any sort of Eucharistic adoration service or anything, and I'm not aware of any parishes that do or what their reasoning for not doing so would be. Western mysticism has an interesting history amongst Orthodoxy, but interestingly enough, not by the Western Rite.

St Dimitri’s library held books by Bonaventure, Thomas a Kempis, Peter Canisius and other Roman Catholic authors, and in his spirituality such elements as the devotion of the passions of Christ, the five wounds of Christ and the heart of Christ may be traced. The influence of Roman Catholic spirituality on St Tikhon of Zadonsk can equally be sensed. And St Nicodemus translated the work of a Latin Theatine monk, Invisible Warfare, into Greek.

Quote

Or are we talking about a veneer of 16th-century Roman liturgy translated into "Elizabethan" English embellishing contemporary Byzantine theology?If our Lex Orandi was worth adopting, why not our Lex Credendi and Lex Vivendi that went with it?

The Western Rite is new and will continue to grow and develop within the Orthodox Church (God willing). Most of what's in use right now is simply taking what had been used by those parishes desiring to enter into communion with the Orthodox Church, and assuming and blessing as much of it as possible. Perhaps more things will be brought into the fold, perhaps some will naturally fall out of use. It's tough to say.

If I wanted to learn about the Eastern Rite, I would go to the Eastern Orthodox Church to learn about it. That means I would go to a parish that is truly and historically part of the Orthodox Church, such as the Russian Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church, or a canonical Orthodox Church in communion with them.

I would not go to Roman Catholic Church or a group in communion with Rome to learn about it, regardless of whether this group is called the Byzantine Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

It makes no sense for the Latin Church to use the Eastern Liturgy just as it makes no sense for the Eastern Church to perform the Western (Latin) liturgy.

Can you not see that having so-called "Western Rite" Orthodox is simply reverse Uniatism? Why would anyone want that again? Why repeat the mistake?

Eastern Rite Roman Catholics and Western Rite Orthodox are always going to be perceived as "grudge churches."

And American, with all our jurisdictional pluralism and canonical mess is the LAST place that needs Western Rite Orthodox. We don't even have all the North American Orthodox on the same calendar and we introduce a Western Rite into our alphabet soup of jurisdictions? I don't find that helpful, prudent or wise. How can it possibly help American Orthodox to attain any unity? It will only further fragment us into more tribal-like factions. It will create a liturgical ghetto for former Episcopalians and other converts rather than incorporating them into already existing American Orthodoxy.

As you can tell, I think the Western Rite in the USA is a horrible idea. Perhaps in historical Western lands in Europe it could work, in places where there is a real organic link to the Western Orthodox past, like England or Ireland for example. But it the USA, I think it will only further divide us. And we desperately need more unity and cooperation. We are far too tribal and factional already.

Not to mention both "Western rites" are cobbled together. It just seems very unlike the Orthodox to just pick up a rite having laid fallow for hundreds of years, make some Byzantine modifications, and then start using it.

The modifications to the Tridentine Mass and the Book of Common Prayer to make them the DL Liturgies of SS. Gregory and Tikhon are not "byzantine" modifications, they (explicite epiclesis, deletion of references to merits of the saints, etc.) are Orthodox ones. That's the difference between the WRO and the Vatican's "eastern rites"

The DL of St. James was picked up in various parts having laid fallow for hundreds of years there (though in continous celebration elsewhere), made some modifications from the rites of Constantinople, and then started using it.

How so? It least when it was used by heretics and schismatics, it had an explicite epiclesis, something that no less than St. Philaret of Moscow (at the time the senior hiearach and Patriarch in all but name) brought up.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

slightly off the topic, but what is the calender deal? I am new and unfamiliar with what causes such a heated controversy. Back to topic, in reply to the other RC's on line, both the tridentine mass and "Novus Ordo" are sort of "cobbled together" and are not as ancient as the Byzantine.

Shhh! You're not supposed to notice that, let alone point it out!

As to the calendar: in brief a lot has to do with the way the calendar change was enforced (by bullets in some places) and the personages with whom the change is associated (collaborators with the Bolsheviks, too exurberant ecumenists, corrupt clerics etc.), something that has become rancid with time in some places, in others mellowed. In some places (like Antioch) it wasn't a problem at all.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

slightly off the topic, but what is the calender deal? I am new and unfamiliar with what causes such a heated controversy. Back to topic, in reply to the other RC's on line, both the tridentine mass and "Novus Ordo" are sort of "cobbled together" and are not as ancient as the Byzantine.

Shhh! You're not supposed to notice that, let alone point it out!

As to the calendar: in brief a lot has to do with the way the calendar change was enforced (by bullets in some places) and the personages with whom the change is associated (collaborators with the Bolsheviks, too exurberant ecumenists, corrupt clerics etc.), something that has become rancid with time in some places, in others mellowed. In some places (like Antioch) it wasn't a problem at all.

As an aside, I heard Antioch did not change the calendar until 1943, and no one really knows why they changed it, it just happened. Any insights?

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Why does the EP or the Greek church need to approve? If I felt the need for a pope I would remain RC!

I don't he is saying that they need to give pope-like approval, only that their issues point to there being problem (and I'm not saying that I agree with him).

Well when the EP cleans up the mess created by the calendar of Meletios Metaxakis the New Calendar and the Council hopefully by the grace of God returns all of Orthodoxy to the Julian Calendar which continues to be used by the majority of Orthodox Christians

By the grace of God, all the Churches would switch fully to the revised Julian Calendar.

I think there is no chance of convincing the Russian Church, the Serbian, Georgian, Jerusalem and Mt Athos of this. Why would we change? There was nothing wrong about using the calendar we have always used. Pseudo-scientific appeals of new calendarism have nothing to do with the Orthodox faith and everything to do with ecumenism and heterodoxy.

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

If there is absolutely no controversy among Orthodox Churches over the use of the Western rite, then why does the EP and Church of Greece not approve of its usage? I remember reading how the GOA's Metropolitan of San Francisco forbide his priest from serving with WR clergy.

Most of your points have already been adequately addressed, but I did want to mention that the GOA Met. of San Francisco was merely speaking on his own behalf. The Greek Church in Denver is quite supportive of the 2 WR parishes in that city, and just last night in my own city, we had the priests of the GOA Church as well as the OCA Church attend our Western Rite Solemn Vespers service for Laetare Sunday. And it wasn't begrudgingly! They were kneeling, standing, bowing and chanting along the whole time.

Perhaps the electric organs creeping their way into the GOA, pews limiting the movement of the faithful and veneration of icons, and in some places shrinking iconostasis reflects a Latin-ization of the Byzantine in the US?

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

If there is absolutely no controversy among Orthodox Churches over the use of the Western rite, then why does the EP and Church of Greece not approve of its usage? I remember reading how the GOA's Metropolitan of San Francisco forbide his priest from serving with WR clergy.

Most of your points have already been adequately addressed, but I did want to mention that the GOA Met. of San Francisco was merely speaking on his own behalf. The Greek Church in Denver is quite supportive of the 2 WR parishes in that city, and just last night in my own city, we had the priests of the GOA Church as well as the OCA Church attend our Western Rite Solemn Vespers service for Laetare Sunday. And it wasn't begrudgingly! They were kneeling, standing, bowing and chanting along the whole time.

Perhaps the electric organs creeping their way into the GOA, pews limiting the movement of the faithful and veneration of icons, and in some places shrinking iconostasis reflects a Latin-ization of the Byzantine in the US?

You don't find such things only in the US, or other parts of the "diaspora" for that matter, but in the "Mother Churches" themselves

Btw, smaller and transparent iconstasis are just a restoration of earlier Orthodox usage.

And electric organs and pews have nothing to do with the WRO.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

slightly off the topic, but what is the calender deal? I am new and unfamiliar with what causes such a heated controversy. Back to topic, in reply to the other RC's on line, both the tridentine mass and "Novus Ordo" are sort of "cobbled together" and are not as ancient as the Byzantine.

Shhh! You're not supposed to notice that, let alone point it out!

As to the calendar: in brief a lot has to do with the way the calendar change was enforced (by bullets in some places) and the personages with whom the change is associated (collaborators with the Bolsheviks, too exurberant ecumenists, corrupt clerics etc.), something that has become rancid with time in some places, in others mellowed. In some places (like Antioch) it wasn't a problem at all.

As an aside, I heard Antioch did not change the calendar until 1943, and no one really knows why they changed it, it just happened. Any insights?

No. None at all. It was such a non-issue, it left no record. By then Constantinople and Alexandria had changed, as had Greece, Romania and Albania, and IIRC there was talk of Jerusalem doing so (which never happened permanently).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think there is no chance of convincing the Russian Church, the Serbian, Georgian, Jerusalem and Mt Athos of this. Why would we change? There was nothing wrong about using the calendar we have always used. Pseudo-scientific appeals of new calendarism have nothing to do with the Orthodox faith and everything to do with ecumenism and heterodoxy.

Not to get derailed into a calendar debate, but pseudo-science? There's nothing pseudo about the fact that Old Calendar March 21 is 13 days after the spring equinox it is supposed to mark.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

Why does the EP or the Greek church need to approve? If I felt the need for a pope I would remain RC!

I don't he is saying that they need to give pope-like approval, only that their issues point to there being problem (and I'm not saying that I agree with him).

Well when the EP cleans up the mess created by the calendar of Meletios Metaxakis the New Calendar and the Council hopefully by the grace of God returns all of Orthodoxy to the Julian Calendar which continues to be used by the majority of Orthodox Christians

By the grace of God, all the Churches would switch fully to the revised Julian Calendar.

I think there is no chance of convincing the Russian Church, the Serbian, Georgian, Jerusalem and Mt Athos of this.

The New Calendar was one of the issues on the table for the Great of the Russian Church which the Bolshevik Revolution interrupted. Just recently I posted something from the Imperial Russian Academny of Science or Astronomy or some such thing that put forth a proposal on the calendar.

The Church of Serbia was the one which proposed the revision of the Julian calendar, which should be adopted in full.

I confess I have no knowledge of the thoughts of the Catholicate of Georgia on the matter, except that it hasn't changed, yet.

Jerusalem is the only ones who outdo the Phanar in ignoring the fact that the Exalted Ottoman State is no more. They have stuck their fingers firmly in their ears that they cannot hear the plain words of the angels "why do you seek the Living among the dead?" Those tomb worshipper are too busy killing the Church, accomplishing what over a millenia of Muslims and Crusaders could not do.

Time does not move much on Mt. Athos, so I am told, so I dare say it woudn't matter much.

Pseudo-scientific appeals of new calendarism have nothing to do with the Orthodox faith and everything to do with ecumenism and heterodoxy.

You mean about the pseudo-sun in the pseudo-sky next to the pseu-moon there? And those hetetrodox ideas of Copernicus about the earth revolving around the sun?

« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 04:11:35 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The modifications to the Tridentine Mass and the Book of Common Prayer to make them the DL Liturgies of SS. Gregory and Tikhon are not "byzantine" modifications, they (explicite epiclesis, deletion of references to merits of the saints, etc.) are Orthodox ones.

No, they are Byzantinizations. If the Roman Mass ever had an explicit Epiclesis of the Eastern type, and there is no definitive proof it did, Pope St Gelasius likely removed it. It is known that since Pope St. Gregory the Great the Holy Mass has been celebrated without an explicit Epiclesis, Byzantine or otherwise. St. Nicholas Cabasilas, in the midst of the Hesychast battles, was able to see the venerable Roman Canon as sufficient without one, recognizing the Supplices te rogamus as an implicit Epiclesis; that those invovled with current Western Orthodox liturgics cannot is disturbing

The modifications to the Tridentine Mass and the Book of Common Prayer to make them the DL Liturgies of SS. Gregory and Tikhon are not "byzantine" modifications, they (explicite epiclesis, deletion of references to merits of the saints, etc.) are Orthodox ones.

No, they are Byzantinizations. If the Roman Mass ever had an explicit Epiclesis of the Eastern type, and there is no definitive proof it did, Pope St Gelasius likely removed it. It is known that since Pope St. Gregory the Great the Holy Mass has been celebrated without an explicit Epiclesis, Byzantine or otherwise. St. Nicholas Cabasilas, in the midst of the Hesychast battles, was able to see the venerable Roman Canon as sufficient without one, recognizing the Supplices te rogamus as an implicit Epiclesis; that those invovled with current Western Orthodox liturgics cannot is disturbing

If St. Nicholas saw the Roman canon as sufficient without one, he would have seen the need of recognizing Supplices te rogamus as one (as indeed, it is the remnants of the fuller one), now would he, Deacon?

Your confusion, of course, is coming from the Vatican:

Quote

The Catholic Church [i.e. Trent] has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear.Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htmAlas! This is just another example of error and heresy that crept into Rome that transformed it into the ecclesiatical community that left the communion of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as it left the venerable Roman canon

Quote

It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer...Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations....The Roman Rite too at one time had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) refers to it plainly: "Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus adveniet, si sacerdos...criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?" ("Epp. Fragm.", vii, in Thiel, "Epp. Rom. Pont.", I, 486). Watterich (Der Konsekrationsmoment im h. Abendmahl, 1896, pp. 133 sq.) brings other evidences of the old Roman Invocation. he (p. 166) and Drews (Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons, 1902, p. 28) think that several secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary were originally Invocations (see article CANON OF THE MASS). Of the essential clause left out — our prayer: "Supplices te rogamus" (Duchesne, op. cit., 173-5). It seems that an early insistence on the words of Institution as the form of Consecration (see, for instance, Pseudo-Ambrose, "De Mysteriis", IX, 52, and "De Sacramentis", IV, 4, 14-15, 23; St. Augustine, Sermon 227) led in the West to the neglect and mutilation of the Epiklesis.

leaving a deficient canon and an insufficient one were it not for the vestige "Supplices." It was not only the Orthodox in the East who noticed the problem:

Quote

in the West too (since the sixteenth century especially), this question aroused some not very important discussion. The Dominican Ambrose Catharinus (sixteenth century) thought that our Consecration takes place at an Epiklesis that precedes the recital of Christ's words. This Epiklesis he thinks to be the prayer "Quam oblationem." A few others (including Renaudot) more or less shared his opinion. Against these Hoppe (op. cit. infra) showed that in any case the Epiklesis always follows the words of Institution and that our "Quam Oblationem" cannot be considered one at all. He and others suggest a mitigated theory, according to which the Invocation (in our case the "Supplice te rogamus") belongs not to the essence of the sacrament, but in some way to its (accidental) integrity. John of Torquemada at the Council of Florence (Hardouin IX, 976), Francisco Suárez (De Sacram., disp. lviii, 3), Bellarmine (De Euch., iv, 14), Lugo (De Euch., disp. xi, 1) explain that the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is made rather that He may sanctify our reception of the Holy Eucharist. This is a theoretical explanation sought out to account for the fact of the Epiklesis, without giving up our insistence on the words of Institution as alone consecrating. Historically and according to the text of the old invocations they must rather be looked upon as dramatically postponed expressions of what happens at one moment.

Most dramatically and to the point, the Scottish church after the reformation saw the deficiency and wrote an explicite epiclesis into their liturgy, and when the newly formed Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States received ordination from Scotland (as the English bishops were prevented by law), Scotland gave it on the condition that PECUSA retain the epiclesis, which later became a source of pride to the delegation to St. Philaret of Moscow. That epiclesis of the rite of St. Tikhon would suffice for the rite of St. Gregory, were it not for the insistence of Ultramontanism that the Vatican's rites are perfect the way she dictates them. The insertion of the epiclesis familiar to most Eastern Orthodox serves a necessary pastoral need, both to legitimize the WRO to any EO who would question it, and to signal to the WRO that they have left the heresy of the West for its venerable Orthodox Tradition. Those who are invovled with current Western Orthodox liturgics know their business, unshaken Orthodox witness:

Quote

On the other hand Orthodox theologians all consider the Epiklesis as being at least an essential part of the Consecration. In this question they have two schools. Some, Peter Mogilas, for instance, consider the Epiklesis alone as consecrating (Kimmel, Monumenta fidei eccl. orient., Jena, 1850, I, 180), so that presumably the words of Institution might be left out without affecting the validity of the sacrament. But the greater number, and now apparently all, require the words of Institution too. They must be said, not merely historically, but as the first part of the essential form; they sow as it were the seed that comes forth and is perfected by the Epiklesis. Both elements, then, are essential. This is the theory defended by their theologians at the Council of Florence (1439). A deputation of Latins and Greeks was appointed then to discuss the question. The Greeks maintained that both forms are necessary, that Transubstantiation does not take place till the second one (the Epiklesis) is pronounced, and that the Latin "Supplices te rogamus" is a true Epiklesis having the same effect as theirs. On the other hand the Dominican John of Torquemada defended the Western position that the words of Institution alone and at once consecrate (Hardouin IX, 977 sqq.). The decree of the council eventually defined this "quod illa verba divina Salvatoris omnem virtutem transsubstantiationis habent," ibid.; see also the decree for the Armenians: "forma huius sacramenti sunt verba Salvatoris" in Denzinger, 10th ed., no. 698-old no. 593). Cardinal Bessarion afterwards wrote a book "De Sacramento Eucharistiæ et quibus verbis Christi corpus conficitur, 1462, in P.G., CLXI, 494-525), to whom Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus answered in a treatise with a long title: "That not only by the sound of the Lord's words are the divine gifts sanctified, but (in addition) by the prayer after these and by the consecration of the priest in the strength of the Holy Ghost."

The official Euchologion of the Orthodox Church has a note after the words of Institution to explain that: "Since the demonstrative pronouns: This is my body, and again: This is my blood, do not refer to the Offerings that are present, but to those which Jesus, taking in His hands and blessing, gave to His Disciples; therefore those words of the Lord are repeated as a narrative [diegematikos], and consequently it is superfluous to show the Offerings (by an elevation) and indeed contrary to the right mind of the Eastern Church of Christ" (ed. Venice, 1898, p. 63). This would seem to imply that Christ's words have no part in the form of the sacrament. On the other hand Dositheus in the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) apparently requires both words of Institution and Epiklesis: "It [the Holy Eucharist] is instituted by the essential word [remati uparktiko, i.e. Christ's word] and sanctified by the invocation of the Holy Ghost" (Conf. Dosithei, in Kimmel, op. cit., I, 451), and this seems to be the common theory among the Orthodox in our time.

Why the modern WRO liturgists, now opertating in full safety, should abandon the position held by the Orthodox bishops being starved into submission at Florence, the Orthodox Met. Mogilas restoring a destroyed Church under the heel of the Polish king acting as the Vatican's agent, etc. i.e. when the Orthodox were being rendered powerless but yet holding tight to the Orthodox position-why the WRO liturgists working in freedom should abandon that position I will leave to you to explain.

I know that doesn't comport with your Byzantinization, but we don't do things the way the Vatican does. That is why we are Orthodox, and it is not, and why the WRO is not "reverse-uniatism" (if there is a more PC term, let me know: I've never heard the accusation of "reverse-eastern ritism" for instance). The Orthodox confess what we believe and believe what we confess: you won't see any WRO parish were someone has gone through all the service books and wrote in "and the Son"

« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 11:29:14 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In the WR, do they use leavened bread as in the Byzantine, or unleavened bread for Communion?Is there benediction of the Blessed Sacrament practiced as well? Are statues permitted and devotions such as the Sacred Heart encouraged?

I have heard that the WR extends only to liturgy and that the theology is all Easter, but how far can a WR go in preserving Western spirituality?

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Do the WR parishes of ROCOR use the Julian or revised calendar? What about the Pascal reckoning?

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

If St. Nicholas saw the Roman canon as sufficient without one, he would not have seen the need of recognizing Supplices te rogamus as one (as indeed, it is the remnants of the fuller one), now would he, Deacon?

I added the "not" as I think that is what you meant to say.

I did not say he saw it as sufficient without one (meaning any) I said without an explicit descending Epiclesis of the Byzantine type. Supplices te rogamus is an implicit ascending Epiclesis. Quam oblationem is an implicit descending Epiclesis.

And again you side step the point. The Orthodox Popes of Old Rome from St Gregory Dialogos to St. Zachary celebrated the Holy Roman Mass without a Byzantine Epiclesis. If it was good enough for these Orthodox Fathers it should be good enough for the modern Western Orthodox. If a more explicit Epiclesis is so necessary there are Western ones to choose from in Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites.

If St. Nicholas saw the Roman canon as sufficient without one, he would not have seen the need of recognizing Supplices te rogamus as one (as indeed, it is the remnants of the fuller one), now would he, Deacon?

I did not say he saw it as sufficient without one (meaning any) I said without an explicit descending Epiclesis of the Byzantine type. Supplices te rogamus is an implicit ascending Epiclesis. Quam oblationem is an implicit descending Epiclesis.

'We aren't scholastics, so we don't analyze to death validity, licity, form, matter etc. Either it suffices, or it doesn't. All the Fathers said it did, but then they weren't dealing with the arrogance of such statements "The Catholic Church [i.e. Trent] has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York." That changes things somewhat.

And again you side step the point. The Orthodox Popes of Old Rome from St Gregory Dialogos to St. Zachary celebrated the Holy Roman Mass without a Byzantine Epiclesis.

The Ecumenical Patriarchs of New Rome do not have a Byzantine Epiclesis. They have a Constantinopolitan one.

The Roman Canon didn't need a Constantinopolitan Epiclesis, a Roman one would suffice.

Quote

Supplices te rogamus

This prayer is commonly believed to be the remnant of the Roman Epiklesis (Duchesne joins the preceding "Supra quæ" to it as making up the Invocation, "Origines", 173). It seems certain that our liturgy, like all the others, once had an Epiklesis, and this would be its natural place. Even as late as the time of Pope Gelasius I (492-96) there seems to have still been one. He writes: "How shall the Heavenly Spirit, when He is invoked to consecrate the divine mystery, come, if the priest and he who prays Him to come is guilty of bad actions?" (Ep., vii; Thiel, Ep. Rom. Pont., I, 486: "si sacerdos, et qui eum adesse deprecatur". By striking out the "et" we have a much plainer sentence: "If the priest who prays Him to come".) Watterich (Konsekrationsmoment, 166), and Drews (Entstehungsgesch., 28) think that several of the Secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary (which does not contain the Canon) are really Epikleses, For instance: "Send, we pray Thee O Lord, thy Holy Spirit, who shall make these our present gifts into thy Sacrament for us", etc. (ed. Feltoe, p. 74; XXX Mass for July). The chief reason for considering our prayer "Supplices te rogamus" as the fragment of an Epiklesis is its place in the Canon, which corresponds exactly to that of the Epiklesis (following the Anamnesis) in the Syrian Rite (Brightman, 54). But its form is hardly that of an Epiklesis. The first words of the preceding prayer, "Supra quæ propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris", suggest the beginning of the Alexandrine Epiklesis: "Look down upon us and upon this bread and this wine" (Brightman, 134), and the last part (Sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem) have perhaps a vague resemblance; but certainly the chief thing, the Invocation of the Holy Ghost to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is wanting. Moreover there is a prayer in the Alexandrine Liturgy which corresponds singularly to these two prayers ("Supra quæ" and "Supplices"): "the Sacrifices . . . of them that offer honour and glory to thy holy name receive upon thy reasonable altar in heaven . . . through the ministry of thy holy angels and archangels; like as Thou didst accept the gifts of righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our father Abraham", etc. (Brightman, I, 170, 171; the Greek form, 129). And this is not an Epiklesis but an Offertory prayer, coming in the middle of the Intercession that with them fills up what we should call the Preface. On the other hand the end of the "Supplices te rogamus" (from "ut quotquot") corresponds very closely to the end of both Eastern Epikleses. Antioch has here: "that it may become to all who partake of it" (quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione) "for a forgiveness of sins and for life everlasting" etc. (Brightman, 54); and at Alexandria the form is: "that it may become to all of us who partake of it (a source of) Faith", etc. (ib., 134). It seems, then, that this prayer in our Canon is a combination of the second part of an Invocation (with the essential clause left out) and an old Offertory prayer. It has been suggested that the angel mentioned here is the Holy Ghost — an attempt to bring it more into line with the proper form of an Invocation. There is however no foundation for this assertion. We have seen that the Alexandrine form has the plural "thy holy angels"; so has the Latin form in "De Sacramentis"; "per manus angelorum tuorum" (IV, v). The reference is simply to an angel or to angels who assist at the throne of God and carry our prayers to Him (Tobit 12:12, etc.). We have already seen that the order and arrangement of our Canon presents difficulties; this is a further case in point. As for the vanished Invocation itself, it will probably always remain a mystery what has become of it. Watterich (op. cit., p. 142) thinks that it was Gelasius himself who removed it from this place and put it before the words of Institution. And indeed the prayer "Quam oblationem" has a curious suggestion of an Invocation in its terms. On the other hand an Epiklesis before the words of Institution would be an anomaly unparalleled in any rite in the world. To come back to the rubrics, the celebrant has resumed the normal attitude of standing with uplifted hands after the "Unde et memores", except that now the forefingers and thumbs remain joined; at the "Supplices te rogamus" he bows deeply over the altar — a ceremony obviously in accordance with the nature of its first words — resting his joined hands on it; and he stays so to the words" ex hac altaris participatione" at which he kisses the altar, rises, joins his hands, and makes the sign of the cross over the Host at "Corpus", over the chalice at "Sanguinem", and on himself at "omni benedictione" (while he crosses himself, the left hand is, as always in this case, laid on the breast). He joins his hands for "Per eumdem", etc., and lifts them up for the next prayer. The next two prayers complete the Intercession, of which we have the greater part before the Consecration. Nihil Obstat. November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

If it was good enough for these Orthodox Fathers it should be good enough for the modern Western Orthodox.

Alas! The defiance to Orthodox praxis and Faith by the purported successors to these Orthodox Fathers has chnaged the goal posts. Much like the changing of the Doxology:

Quote

In general this word means a short verse praising God and beginning, as a rule, with the Greek word Doxa. The custom of ending a rite or a hymn with such a formula comes from the Synagogue (cf. the Prayer of Manasses: tibi est gloria in sæcula sæculorum. Amen). St. Paul uses doxologies constantly (Romans 11:36; Galatians 1:5; Ephesians 3:21; etc.). The earliest examples are addressed to God the Father alone, or to Him through (dia) the Son (Romans 16:27; Jude 25; I Clement 41; Mart. Polyc., xx; etc.) and in (en) or with (syn, meta) the Holy Ghost (Mart. Polyc., xiv, xxii, etc.). The form of baptism (Matthew 28:19) had set an example of naming the three Persons in parallel order. Especially in the fourth century, as a protest against Arian subordination (since heretics appealed to these prepositions; cf. St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit 2-5), the custom of using the form: "Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost", became universal among Catholics. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

If a more explicit Epiclesis is so necessary there are Western ones to choose from in Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites.

Or the one the Scotts created for their use of the Roman rite. They wouldn't serve the same purpose, at present. Once the WRO is fully integrated into the Catholic communion of all the Orthodox Churches, it might be dropped. Then, or before then, I would like to see the restoration/editing of Supplices Te Rogamus and Oblationem to conform in full to Orthodox liturgics.

« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 02:13:01 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Wonderful! Beautiful picture as well. I look forward to seeing pictures from this Pontifical Mass. I look forward to the day that the WR receives its own permanent episcopate, it will be a great step forward!

Re: The Forthcoming All-Western-Rite AWRV-ROCOR Forum

I believe the site for this year's conference (Oct 4-7, 2011) has already beenchosen: the Mount Albernia Retreat Center in Wappinger Falls, NY, a bit north ofNYC - which is a good travel hub. See Fr. Aidan's Oremus blog entry for April 4,2011

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvationS John of Shanghai & San Francisco

I look forward to the day that the WR receives its own permanent episcopate, it will be a great step forward!

My understanding is that the bishops will not create specifically Western Rite bishops since it is not right to divide the faithful within a territory either by race or rite. Presumably if the Isle of Man were solidly Western Rite with no admixture of Byzantines a case could be made for appointing a Western Rite bishop for the island.

My understanding is that the bishops will not create specifically Western Rite bishops since it is not right to divide the faithful within a territory either by race or rite. Presumably if the Isle of Man were solidly Western Rite with no admixture of Byzantines a case could be made for appointing a Western Rite bishop for the island.

Not the strongest arguement since Russian Orthodox faithful are still divided between between ROCOR dioceses and MP dioceses in America and elsewhere and they are the same race and rite. The Western Rite can't get a vicar bishop? The Old Rite had one.

My understanding is that the bishops will not create specifically Western Rite bishops since it is not right to divide the faithful within a territory either by race or rite. Presumably if the Isle of Man were solidly Western Rite with no admixture of Byzantines a case could be made for appointing a Western Rite bishop for the island.

Not the strongest arguement since Russian Orthodox faithful are still divided between between ROCOR dioceses and MP dioceses in America and elsewhere and they are the same race and rite. The Western Rite can't get a vicar bishop? The Old Rite had one.

Yes, there is some chaos in the Diaspora but why spread it?

I take your point about the Old Believers Diocese though.

At the moment the Western Rite of ROCA does have a Vicar Bishop -Bishop Jerome of Manhattan.

The entire Western Rite world of ROCA (USA, Australia and Britain) is outside the diocesan system and every institution is constituted as a "stavropegial" institution directly under Metropolitan Hilarion. This was something he enacted to protect ROCA's Western Rite since there is not a great amount of favour for it among the synod of bishops and some would refuse to have Western Rite in their dioceses. So its existence remains precarious and it would remain to be seen how it would fare if a new Metropolitan were elected who was not sympathetic to Western Rite.

The preponderance of bishops against Western Rite also helps explain why the Old Believers have a diocese but the WRers do not (apart from the reason of their very small numbers.)